Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain, says UK's top judge

[ElFenix]

parties in international transactions routinely choose the law of a country other than their own.

before henry viii abolished the catholic church in england, the king's courts asked the catholic courts if people were married.

so it's not unprecedented.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Aimster
I think all the smart people from Europe came over here when America was first starting to grow as a nation. The idiot genes stayed back in Europe

Then somehow Europeans have evolved awfully fast, surppassing Americans now. Or maybe Americans just devolved, or some form of both.

I think there's more to that than snarky analogies; Europeans seem to have learned lessons from the two world wars and thrived in the peaceful period after, while Americans seem to have fallen into disrepair with the 'fat and lazy' prosperity leaving our country watching too much American Idol and not enough Frontline, voting based on little more than being manipulated by the big money marketing campaigns, while the rest of the world has developed and their graduating ten+ times more Ph.D's bodes poorly for the US.

They have seen fit to abolish capital punisment, have six weeks' vacation, universal healthcare. We saw fit to hand all the growth for 30 years to the top and elect Bush.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Craig234 their graduating ten+ times more Ph.D's .

link?

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Socio
Sounds like a sign that marks the beginning of the end of Europe and the emergence of Eurabia.

That old saying "give someone an inch and they will take a mile" well forget the inch Europe is handing over miles. They give them this and it will be a huge step to the total Islamification of Europe.

I'll double down on your alarmism and claim this will result in the milkyway realigning into the a muslim crescent.

In the U.S., choice of law provisions are generally enforceable unless there is an overriding public policy disfavoring a specific application. As long as the same type of procedure is followed in the U.K., i just don't see a problem.

Again, two non-muslims can agree to use sharia law to resolve a dispute. The problem CAD brought up in terms of a party later deciding the choice of law provision was a dumb idea has been addressed in numerous U.S. cases. Basically, too bad.

I would say allow people to agree to a sharia type mediation AFTER a dispute has arisen. I'm not a fan of choice of law and forum selection provisions in general. I'm sure everybody here was forced to sign a contract with some large national company that stated there would be binding mandatory arbitration if any dispute arose and that this arbitration would have to take place in chicago and under some random arbitration guidelines.

The biggest problem with it is once the door is open and its accepted as a "choice law" how long before it makes the jump from "choice" to "the" law period.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Comparison with law in the United States

Similarities between Islamic law and the common law of the United States have also been noted, particularly in regards to Constitutional law. According to Sameer S. Vohra, the United States Constitution is similar to the Qur?an in that the Constitution is "the supreme law of the land and the basis from which the laws of the legislature originate."[29] According to Asifa Quraishi, the methods used in the judicial interpretation of the Constitution are similar to that of the Qur'an, including the methods of "plain meaning literalism, historical understanding ?originalism,? and reference to underlying purpose and spirit."[30] Vohra further notes that the legislature is similar to the Sunnah in that the "legislature takes the framework of the Constitution and makes directives that involve the specific day-to-day situations of its citizens."[29] He also writes that the judicial decision-making process is similar to the qiyas and ijma methods in that judicial decision-making is "a means by which the law is applied to individual disputes", that "words of the Constitution or of statutes do not specifically address all the possible situations to which they may apply" and that "at times, it requires the judiciary to either use the consensus of previous decisions or reason by analogy to find the correct principle to resolve the dispute."[31]........

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
parties in international transactions routinely choose the law of a country other than their own.

before henry viii abolished the catholic church in england, the king's courts asked the catholic courts if people were married.

so it's not unprecedented.

I thought we wanted to move forward past kings and churches, not backwards.

 

[sandorski]

As the article notes, Other Religions already have similar dispute settling mechanisms. Last time I looked Orthodox Jewish Law had not taken over the English Legal System.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Socio
[The biggest problem with it is once the door is open and its accepted as a "choice law" how long before it makes the jump from "choice" to "the" law period.

The old saying I'm thinking of is, "give someone who lacks critical thinking skills and knowledge of logic a keyboard, and you get a post with a slippery slope fallacy".

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: sandorski
As the article notes, Other Religions already have similar dispute settling mechanisms. Last time I looked Orthodox Jewish Law had not taken over the English Legal System.

Perhaps because they have no desire for it to however the same cannot be said of Muslims and Islamic law.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: sandorski
As the article notes, Other Religions already have similar dispute settling mechanisms. Last time I looked Orthodox Jewish Law had not taken over the English Legal System.

Perhaps because they have no desire for it to however the same cannot be said of Muslims and Islamic law.

...or, perhaps because the way these alternate Courts are implemented don't allow that kind of thing. Something to let echo in your mind.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Socio
[The biggest problem with it is once the door is open and its accepted as a "choice law" how long before it makes the jump from "choice" to "the" law period.

The old saying I'm thinking of is, "give someone who lacks critical thinking skills and knowledge of logic a keyboard, and you get a post with a slippery slope fallacy".

Giving people the ability to exclude themselves from the law of the land while still enjoying the benefits of said land is a recipe for disaster. I think even you can see that. Plus this means you'll be having UK judges parsing Sharia law trying to settle disputes. Should UK lawyers have to be educated in both systems now? What if I want to make up my own legal system, can loki and I enter into a contract under my legal system?

No, I'm sorry, you live by the law of the land. You can try to change it through representative legislative means, but if not that, then you should go back to the place where things worked the way you like them.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: sandorski
As the article notes, Other Religions already have similar dispute settling mechanisms. Last time I looked Orthodox Jewish Law had not taken over the English Legal System.

Perhaps because they have no desire for it to however the same cannot be said of Muslims and Islamic law.

Ever notice how the most evil people are the ones who claim 'defense'?

We have to deny Muslims reasonable rights, because the inertia from 'unequal' to equal' will carry them right on to run the world.

Same thing with gay marriage. How do we know if they get it, the next thing won't be ONLY gay marriage is allowed?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Socio
[The biggest problem with it is once the door is open and its accepted as a "choice law" how long before it makes the jump from "choice" to "the" law period.

The old saying I'm thinking of is, "give someone who lacks critical thinking skills and knowledge of logic a keyboard, and you get a post with a slippery slope fallacy".

Giving people the ability to exclude themselves from the law of the land while still enjoying the benefits of said land is a recipe for disaster. I think even you can see that. Plus this means you'll be having UK judges parsing Sharia law trying to settle disputes. Should UK lawyers have to be educated in both systems now? What if I want to make up my own legal system, can loki and I enter into a contract under my legal system?

No, I'm sorry, you live by the law of the land. You can try to change it through representative legislative means, but if not that, then you should go back to the place where things worked the way you like them.

Uh, you don't know how these things work obviously. Re-read the article.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Socio
[The biggest problem with it is once the door is open and its accepted as a "choice law" how long before it makes the jump from "choice" to "the" law period.

The old saying I'm thinking of is, "give someone who lacks critical thinking skills and knowledge of logic a keyboard, and you get a post with a slippery slope fallacy".

Giving people the ability to exclude themselves from the law of the land while still enjoying the benefits of said land is a recipe for disaster.

That sounds like a bad idea. It also sounds like it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I went to all the trouble to write posts, maybe you could read them.

 

[ProfJohn]

This is awesome.

You want a divorce? Just say so three times and kick the bitch out.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This is awesome.

You want a divorce? Just say so three times and kick the bitch out.

ProfJohn be gone.
ProfJohn be gone.
ProfJohn be gone.

Did it work?

I'm kidding, PJ.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This is awesome.

You want a divorce? Just say so three times and kick the bitch out.

Jewish Law also supports a similar simple Divorce. Just write it down, done.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: sandorski
As the article notes, Other Religions already have similar dispute settling mechanisms. Last time I looked Orthodox Jewish Law had not taken over the English Legal System.

Perhaps because they have no desire for it to however the same cannot be said of Muslims and Islamic law.

...or, perhaps because the way these alternate Courts are implemented don't allow that kind of thing. Something to let echo in your mind.

I think you severely underestimate the intent and ability of Muslims and Islam.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: sandorski
As the article notes, Other Religions already have similar dispute settling mechanisms. Last time I looked Orthodox Jewish Law had not taken over the English Legal System.

Perhaps because they have no desire for it to however the same cannot be said of Muslims and Islamic law.

...or, perhaps because the way these alternate Courts are implemented don't allow that kind of thing. Something to let echo in your mind.

I think you severely underestimate the intent and ability of Muslims and Islam.

I think you severely underestimate the intensity and stupidity of your Hatred and paranoia.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: sandorski
As the article notes, Other Religions already have similar dispute settling mechanisms. Last time I looked Orthodox Jewish Law had not taken over the English Legal System.

Perhaps because they have no desire for it to however the same cannot be said of Muslims and Islamic law.

...or, perhaps because the way these alternate Courts are implemented don't allow that kind of thing. Something to let echo in your mind.

I think you severely underestimate the intent and ability of Muslims and Islam.

Socio, and those who are interested, the following link, IMO, addresses you.
Read this.

The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms?he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millenialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date fort the apocalypse. (?Time is running out,? said Welch in 1951. ?Evidence is piling up on many sides and from many sources that October 1952 is the fatal month when Stalin will attack.?)

As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated?if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid?s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.

The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman?sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid?s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone?s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional).

It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: sandorski
As the article notes, Other Religions already have similar dispute settling mechanisms. Last time I looked Orthodox Jewish Law had not taken over the English Legal System.

Perhaps because they have no desire for it to however the same cannot be said of Muslims and Islamic law.

...or, perhaps because the way these alternate Courts are implemented don't allow that kind of thing. Something to let echo in your mind.

I think you severely underestimate the intent and ability of Muslims and Islam.

I think you severely underestimate the intensity and stupidity of your Hatred and paranoia.

I won't derail this thread but I will start another just for you sandorski to show you the difference between paranoia and reality.

 

[Stoneburner]

Socio, i think your hyperparanoid ranting has already derailed the thread. But thanks for amusing me.

[socio]I for one welcome our new giant ant-muslim overlords[/socio]


and bobberfett, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Socio
[The biggest problem with it is once the door is open and its accepted as a "choice law" how long before it makes the jump from "choice" to "the" law period.

The old saying I'm thinking of is, "give someone who lacks critical thinking skills and knowledge of logic a keyboard, and you get a post with a slippery slope fallacy".

Giving people the ability to exclude themselves from the law of the land while still enjoying the benefits of said land is a recipe for disaster.

That sounds like a bad idea. It also sounds like it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I went to all the trouble to write posts, maybe you could read them.

I read your post. I just didn't read the OP.

 

[Butterbean]

UK society is plagued with coward love of New Labour mentality. They don't have the guts or insight to preserve their society and see their buckling under as a virtue instead of a failing. Luckily people in UK have been waking up to the PC rubbish (even Morrisssey) and the Anglican church is now splitting in recognition of the kooks driving it over the cliff. With stupid global warming taxes, strident PC rubbish everywhere, suicidal elites that faint before intimidation from foreign elements while turning like tigers on its own a new rebellion is building and its here in the US too. The strife over gas and food prices is going to drive a spike right through the heart of the disorder that is mutated liberalism. That phony cupcake Obama cant stop it either.

 

[Double Trouble]

This is pretty much a pattern at this point, the Brits are willing to give up their society to medieval religion nutjobs. This is nuts, the most senior judge in England is basically legitimizing sharia nonsense, holding it up to parallel actual civilized law. Yeesh.